What is your assessment of the
Seattle conference, both from the
point of view of the outcome of the
official conference and from the
point of view of the mobilisation
which resulted?
First of all, personally, I do not see
Seattle as an isolated event, even if
it was an important event.
Principally, I see it rather in a wider
context of struggles that led to the
defeat of the MAI, the now famous
Multilateral Accord of Investments.
Seattle was another almost logical
stage, but we must be careful not to
be triumphant.
This said, what happened in Seattle
was fascinating. Outside the official
conference, there was a
considerable mobilisation of all
sorts of NGOs. One could say, from
a critic’s point of view, that it was a
very heterogeneous alliance. For
example, the United States trade
unions had their own agenda and
their own concerns. All the same, in
the grand diversity of NGOs, there
was quite a large commonality of
views and analyses even though the
organisations had different views
beforehand and acted in an
uncoordinated manner ... ecological
groups, peasant groups, Human
Rights NGOs, NGOs with a social
vocation, Third Worldists, etc. Under
the pressure of events and under
threat, these NGOs have found more
of a common language and common
approach. I consider this
development to be very important.
From the point of view of the official
conference, as some said after its
failure, everything has been thrown
back into question - even
concessions which were obtained at
certain moments in the context of
the WTO. So I think that it is quite
difficult to foresee the future. I think
that the poorest countries, the Third
World countries, will have been
encouraged by Seattle to adopt
quite a hard line.
What place do fundamental human
rights have in this common
approach which appears to be
emerging among the NGOs?
What is very interesting is that
people - and not only Human Rights
NGOs - are now looking at the
questions of international trade and
investment precisely from the angle
of fundamental rights. By the way,
there were some gatherings of
NGOs arranged before the
conference. From this point of view,
Seattle has in some way played a
catalysing role.
I also think that Clinton’s speech,
which, on a superficial first reading,
could be perceived as an
acknowledgement of certain of our
concerns, must be read more
carefully.
It was felt by the Third
World countries to be a sort of
provocation and I think that,
objectively, it contributed to
something that was not really
expected: that is, a much more
united front than previously on the
part of the poor countries. On the
one hand, Clinton’s speech, and on
the other, the encouragement from
the NGOs had a positive effect in
this regard.
Can one say that the Human Rights
NGOs had the opportunity at
Seattle to make clear their claims
on liberalisation of trade and
economic globalisation ?
You know, at Seattle, there was a
multitude of demonstrations. There
were those that could be seen on
television or in the streets.
However, there were also many
alternative demonstrations, where
different sides of the story could be
heard. It was very interesting that
not only NGOs aired their views, but
also certain governments. It was
also partly the tactic of the NGOs to
influence certain governments and
ministers to follow them. There were
also differences in terminology, for
example, the differences found in
the terminology used by
representatives of the UNDP ...Of
course, the terminology of the UNDP
is different from that of the WTO and
it is only at first sight, in fact, that
these differences are surprising. I
think it must be understood that
governments are schizophrenic and
do not necessarily speak in the
same terms in different contexts. A
particular government may say one
thing to the WTO and another to the
United Nations or to the Human
Rights Commission, for example.
And I think we could gain something
positive from this schizophrenia. We
can take governments at their word
and remind them of what they have
said in other contexts about the
need to respect the rights of the
person - we can urge them to take
these rights into account, and
perhaps especially when looking
at problems linked to
development and trade. I will not say
yet that we have won, but I think that
we can build something positive on
what happened at Seattle.
I myself learnt a lot of things at
Seattle, notably on subjects such as
intellectual property and especially
the abuse of patents, and
genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). It is important that the
Human Rights NGOs concern
themselves with these questions
which, at first sight, can seem far
from their traditional field of
concern, but which have an
enormous effect on respect for
fundamental rights, particularly in
southern countries.
And how do the NGOs perceive the
failure of the official conference at
Seattle ? Does this failure
represent a success or a handicap
from the point of view of the followup
to the process?
In one respect I think that it is a
success because it is not what the
governments and the directors of
the WTO wanted. It is true that the
conference started badly and was
badly prepared; apart from the
demonstrations, the conference
started under unfavourable
auspices. However, no-one desired
its failure. The risk, perhaps, is that
in the future, because of the
mobilisation, some of the WTO and
some governments may try to return
to the practice of greater
‘confidentiality’ and negotiate more
in camera. In another respect, I
think that it will be more difficult for
them in the future. What certain
governments have understood, and
others must yet understand, is that
we also have our eyes on them; we
will watch what they do in the
context of the WTO. Therefore I
would be surprised if the WTO could
continue as before. I also think, but
this is a bit of a joke, that in future,
the WTO will have difficulty finding a
host country for its conference...
And what do you see as the most
urgent and important from the point
of view of the Human Rights NGOs,
in particular for the future?
I think that it is really - and it is
relatively new for Human Rights
Organisations - to understand that
nowadays it is essential, if one
wants to defend fundamental rights,
to address the problems of
international trade, economics and
intellectual property seriously. I also
think, more strongly, that we must
call into question the ideology
underlying the path being followed by
the WTO and liberalisation of trade.
I call this the pan-economic ideology.
Among other things, a political
power must be organised more and
more at an international level, and
even at this level, it must be a
citizen power.
Also, one of the important questions
in the future will be to see how the
WTO links up with other
organisations; I am thinking for
example of the International Labour
Organisation. The answer to this
question is far from clear.
Comments reported
by Sylvie Paquerot